RF wrote:I hope the situation for the RN will improve, but Britain is becoming increasingly dependent on its NATO allies to remain an effective fighting force at long range.

It is on issues such as the Falklands, where Britain may not have NATO or US support, where the question of capability arises.

Incidently with respect to the Falklands there has been an announcement by the UK Government that they are to spend £150 million on construction of an inmternational airport for St Helena - an airport that will only take flights from South Africa and Ascension Island. I suspect that a miliary capability is included in this ''development'' package.

With the introduction of the Queen Elizabeth class the RN will not only improve but become less dependent on NATO for power projection, especially at sea. However, we have to come to terms with the fact that we will always have to rely on NATO and other allies for some capabilities. The Falklands require only to be defended, not to be re-took. The Navy would play a very side lined role in the defence of the Falklands even if we had the big QE class in service now.

lynn1212 wrote:..... even when threatened by the divine wind which was in fact a cruse missile attack that pushed the defense of the time to its limit. attacks of 50 or more were common but while lesser ships were killed the top targets went largely safe. none sunk and very few even mission killed for any length of time. even the light carriers only lost one ship. ...

Comparing a Kamikaze with a Tomohawk missile is facile and really gross hyperbole.

The kamikaze was a hit or miss dive bomber - even on a horizontal trajectory.

A Tomohawk is a computer programmed missile with absolute pinpoint accuracy. Remember those video films from Desert Storm and the second war against Iraq - the missiles were sufficiently pinpoint to penetrate precise parts of buildings including doors, windows and ventilation pipes. The kamikaze was nothing like as accurate or decisive a weapon as a guided missile and many of them were shot down. They didn't push the defence of the time to its limit, the defence of the time simply concentrated its firepower. Iraq had no defense against ''cruise'' missiles. Not one was shot down.

compare the tech base available for each time period. the zero was 300 kts but was being countered by manually loaded and human operated weapons some of which were underpowered [20mm]. yes there was fire control for the 40s and 5in but it too was mostly optical and human aimed. even the 40mm was considered light which it was replaced by 3in as soon as possible [after the war]. however accurate the tomahawk is [ which is not a usual anti ship weapon] it like most all anti ship missiles does not change the axis of its attack. usually the only change made is between popup or straight in. most anti ship missiles are subsonic which only gives them double the speed of the zero. they do not hide behind clouds nor duck in and out of showers and they don't change targets at the last minute not do they fly between ships which can cause blue on blue fire. without fighter support WWII weapons were short ranged [ under a few thousand yards except for the 5in]. modern missiles are faster and more accurate but they are also subject to being spoofed by ECM and IR smoke and flares. they are countered by missiles from over the horizon and closer in as well. these weapons are also very accurate but face no jamming. the WWII layered defense was only a mile or three deep. the modern one may be a hundred miles deep not counting fighters. last consider payload. modern skip killers often have a warhead of 2 or 3 hundred pounds. the japanese attackers could carry 1000 pounders and a fair amount of fuel. also their large piston engines were a weapon themselves. now a more personal note fro what its worth. your comparing desert storm tomahawks to anti ship missiles is also erroneous to a large degree. different guidance systems, targets that could be surveyed within inches and didn't often move. land attack tomahawks are pretty much unjammable but need to be given a fixed reference point to aim at. anti ship missiles need to be guided by means that can be countered. their over the horizon targeting can be messed with [ ecm or killing the guide - chopper, sub, small craft] and their built in guidance can also be defeated [ again jamming , smoke, chaff, stealth]. they also make pretty easy targets since the really don't maneuver all that much.

Everyone is placing the Royal Navy too high up based on history. The Royal Navy has no carrier support at this time though there is the promise of the two carriers under construction. Until then the Royal Navy should be scored lower down, though one has to consider her strong submarine fleet

p: Canada will emerge a succesfull navy soon enough. With all of the up grades we are going through it is only a matter of time before the world will see our true potential. We have vast lands from shore to shore that is flowing with natural resources. Hundreds of years worth. We have endless supplies of fresh water and our country is growing every day. Now that the north is opening more due to ice thaws Canada will have to increase their navy and airforce substantially. That will in turn propell us into the next generation. We are in talks for amphibious vessels which will help increase our role in the missions abroad. We have a strong compliment of surface vessels that we can use to form a battlegroup and we have a small submarine fleet for under water observation and protection of such a naval force. With the possible up grade to the F35 we could look towards a VTOL variant, couple that with a heli assault force supported by LCAC's and APC's and we would be a serious contender on any foreign beach. With the vast distances in our Northern region to cover who's to say we don't start looking towards full sized carriers to be able to expand our protection and observation needs. We are a young country in respects to some of the other countrys mentioned in this list and yet in the short time we have exsisted we have done nothing but smile at people and quietly build our country into an industrial powerhouse that has grown and expanded substantially every year. While some of these countrys may have the naval upper hand at this point in time Canada will emerge the naval victor in a few short years i'm sure of it.

i think indian navy comes just next US, Russia and PLAN ..it has purchased gud number as well as quality frigates and 1 aircraft carrier in recent couple of years.however though the submarine arm require quite a lot of improvement..number of destroyers should also be increased.

In my opinion, unless a criteria is designed and agreed, it's not possible to have an "accurate" list which is close to reality. I think the major factors for deciding navy strength are:1. Quality of hardware (ships, airplanes ...). Weight factor 10.2. Quality and readiness of operators (army personals). Weight factor 5.3. Quantity of hardware. Weight factor 1.

US is no doubt the #1, but much more info is needed to see who's 2nd, 3rd ...

all of the third world navies have a serious problem with graft, theft, and mismanagement which degrades their abilities in several ways. bad equipment or nor enough stuff. poor training. poor living conditions. breakdowns and shoddy repairs. by the way i include russia as third world here

Russians have an obsolete fleet.Its kuzetonov is escorted by tugboats not destroyers and frigates .

PLAN has a large fleet of conventional submarines more than Russian Navy.Also a dozen destroyers and frigates.

The Royal Navy has 100% nuclear submarine fleet and aHMS Elizabeth and S Prince of Wales ACs .

Indian Navy has 14 conventional submarine fleet.1 Akula class and 1 Arihant SSBNWith 2 under construction and 6 Scorpenes under construction and. ItHas the new 45,000 ton Vikramadityaditya and another 45,000 ton INS Vikrant under construction. It has an Austin -Class LPD . Its also going to float a RFP for 4 Amphibious LHD or LPD while it already has. 9 landing tanks and RFP for 6 next gen submarines.Its plans to build 9 nuclear SSN submarines and a Nuclear powered CATOBAR AC INS Vishal .It also has started the construction of the largest naval base in Eastern hemisphere..Its naval air arm has 220 aircrafts. It has 9 Destroyers ,15 Frigates, 25 corvettes and 67 auxillary vessels. With 140 vessels more than Royal Navy and French Navy and South Korean Navy.

India now has 2 aircraft carriers and 2 more in construction 1 nuclear submarine in commission with upto 3 more being built....the Indian armed forces also has the fastest cruise missile and several frigates and attack submarines ............. almost 50 more ships of various classes will be inducted into service before 2020 and as of 2015 has about 210 vessels at sea ..........and they are incorporating ingeniously aircraft's to their carriers(both fixed wing and rotary wing).............. they have the technology to build almost any war machine man can imagine...........

indian wrote:Russians have an obsolete fleet.Its kuzetonov is escorted by tugboats not destroyers and frigates .

PLAN has a large fleet of conventional submarines more than Russian Navy.Also a dozen destroyers and frigates.

The Royal Navy has 100% nuclear submarine fleet and aHMS Elizabeth and S Prince of Wales ACs .

Indian Navy has 14 conventional submarine fleet.1 Akula class and 1 Arihant SSBNWith 2 under construction and 6 Scorpenes under construction and. ItHas the new 45,000 ton Vikramadityaditya and another 45,000 ton INS Vikrant under construction. It has an Austin -Class LPD . Its also going to float a RFP for 4 Amphibious LHD or LPD while it already has. 9 landing tanks and RFP for 6 next gen submarines.Its plans to build 9 nuclear SSN submarines and a Nuclear powered CATOBAR AC INS Vishal .It also has started the construction of the largest naval base in Eastern hemisphere..Its naval air arm has 220 aircrafts. It has 9 Destroyers ,15 Frigates, 25 corvettes and 67 auxillary vessels. With 140 vessels more than Royal Navy and French Navy and South Korean Navy.

bro you forgot to mention the induction of hal tejas, rudra and the ongoing design and manufacturing of hal AMCA and DRDO AURA